Digest for sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com - 15 updates in 5 topics

rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>: Jul 24 01:15AM -0400

rbowman wrote on 7/22/2017 1:38 PM:
> falls off gradually or if there is an efficiency sweet spot around 65-70.
> Except for around the cities the interstate speed limit in this and some of
> the adjoining states is 80. Drive 65 at your own risk.
 
Air resistance rises as the square of the speed. So faster is worse by more
than the linear proportion. I find I notice the difference when I drive
over 60. By 80 you are burning a *lot* more fuel than at 60, about 75% more
to overcome air resistance. I don't know how tires impact the equation and
of course since all these speeds are in top gear the entire drive train is
turning 33% faster as well.
 
--
 
Rick C
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>: Jul 24 01:53AM -0400

Mad Roger wrote on 7/22/2017 7:42 PM:
>> better.
 
> Does your tripmeter have a decimal place and digits after that decimal
> place?
 
I've never seen a trip odometer that didn't have tenths of a mile.
 
 
>> My speedometer is mechanical and so has a separate calibration factor.
 
> The speedometer example was only brought in to point out that the vain hope
> that averages result in better "accuracy" is patently false.
 
Only because averages don't impact the effect of limited accuracy, averaging
mitigates the effect of limited precision. But both precision and accuracy
impact the error in any one reading.
 
 
 
>> Of course it is. States inspect them at some point.
 
> You don't seem to understand what accuracy and precision even mean.
> Haven't you taken even one science lab course?
 
I think you are missing something. What you replied do does not in any way
indicate a limited understanding of precision and accuracy. But affect each
measurement taken. An inspection measurement will require the combination
of accuracy and precision in that measurement be within some limit. What do
you expect them to do, take dozens of measurements? There are economic
considerations, especially since this is about economics anyway. It is to
prevent excess profits from being made by shortchanging the customers.
 
 
> and, in fact, you're exactly the mom-and-pop type person I was talking
> about when I opened the thread.
 
> I understand you.
 
Not sure what that means. What I am doing by repeatedly topping off is to
reach the point where the fuel in the filler neck is right at the nozzle so
it won't run anymore, but rather cuts off immediately. This results in a
very consistent fill level.
 
 
>> gallon burned so I don't need to worry about the gas warming up and running
>> out of the tank. I believe this makes for very consistent fill ups.
 
> I'm sure you do believe that.
 
I think my consistent mileage measurements support my conclusions.
 
 
>> My MPG results pretty well show the consistency of my measures.
 
> I'm sure your MPG results support any theory you want them to support.
> I believe you.
 
You seem to be doubting my results. Are you suggesting I am fudging my data?
 
 
 
>> I see less than 19 or even 19.5 MPG.
 
> I bet you see that decimal place even though it's not in the tripmeter
> estimation nor in the filllevel estimation.
 
You seem obsessed with evaluating the resulting MPG measurement even though
you can't put numbers on the accuracy of the parameters that impact the MPG
errors. If you can't come up with numbers, your ideas are of no value. But
that doesn't mean the errors in my MPG measurements aren't as they appear to
be.
 
Actually, I do have numbers for the parameters. I know the mileage to a
fraction of a mile (even though a tenth mile out of 400 is far more accurate
than anything else involved) and I have no reason to doubt the pump giving
me 20.0 gal when it says 20.0 gal. I don't fill up at the same pump each
time so if some were off it would show up and I'd be able to identify which
pumps were inaccurate.
 
 
 
>> I think the consistency of my MPG readings show how well each of these can
>> be measured.
 
> I'm sure you do.
 
You keep saying this without indicating what you mean.
 
 
> are likely better than the otherwise astoundingly huge imprecision in the
> fuel-fill level estimation and in the lesser inaccuracy of the tripmeter
> estimation.
 
Lol! You see, I understand you because you're the type of person I had in
mind when I made that comment.
 
 
>> Other than scale
>> error which can be calibrated out the odometer will be very good.
 
> Define "very good" please.
 
Have done, 0.1 mile over 100 miles has been calibrated... actually, it was
much better than 0.1 mile since I can interpolate the analog dial. I don't
drive that stretch of road anymore, so I can't calibrate 100.0 miles
continuously anymore or I would.
 
 
> calculate 19.5 miles per gallon and not something like 19.5 rounded up to
> 20 and then the error taken into account such that it's more likely
> anywhere between 19 and 21 mpg than it is 19.5 mpg.
 
Sorry, your sentence doesn't make sense to me. Can you construct it properly?
 
 
> say anything about what that "change" was.
 
> And, more importantly, neither can you.
> Which is the entire point after all.
 
If what you say is true, why is it I have only seen 21 mpg a very, very few
times in the 20 years I have been checking my mileage? If what you are
saying is true, I should see a much wider variation in measurements than I
see. As I have said, 95% of the time I get between 19.5 and 20.5 mpg or
within a 4% range (+-2%). It's actually even tighter than that. It's more
like 19.7 to 20.2 mpg but I can't say just how often.
 
--
 
Rick C
"pfjw@aol.com" <pfjw@aol.com>: Jul 24 06:07AM -0700

KEEERIST!!!
 
Miles driven per gallon, kilometers driven per liter, furlongs realized per bale. Pretty basic. And within "R-E-A-L-I-S-T-I-C" tolerances, may be calculated using 2nd grade arithmetic.
 
However! There are various factors that will affect results:
 
Speed driven
Distance driven
Style of driving
Type of vehicle
Load on vehicle
Condition of vehicle
Terrain
Type of tires
Condition of tires
Tire inflation
Condition of bearings & CV joints (if any)
Condition of suspension
 
So, we are able to make a snapshot of any given trip. And an average of several trips, that will give us a practical expectation of consumption based on our style in our car in its present condition. Not to be confused with an actual and accurate description of consumption - as that not only can, but *W*I*L*L* change with any change in the above parameters, and likely several others not enumerated.
 
We are discussing CARS as they are used EVERY DAY. We are not discussing neurosurgery, rocket science, disease vectors nor anything else other than very broad-brush stuff.
 
Per Deacon Mushrat, 2,619 1/2 can dance on the head of a pin - so that is now settled science.
 
Yikes!
 
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net>: Jul 23 01:32PM -0400

On 07/22/2017 05:33 PM, Michael Black wrote:
 
> the problem. So something was changed there. But that's different from
> playing MP3s, though for many people it did matter, since they put MP3s
> on a CDRW disc and then played that.
 
CD-RWs required more sensitive optics on the part of the playback
device, CD-Rs however once they were written with PCM audio data (_not_
mp3 files) and finalized IIRC were essentially the material equivalent
of a commercial Red Book audio CD and should work on any CD player, even
ones from the 1980s.
bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net>: Jul 23 01:35PM -0400

On 07/22/2017 05:14 PM, Gareth Magennis wrote:
 
> My 1999 Ford Focus Original CD/radio would play a CD full of mp3's no
> problem.
 
> Gareth.
 
IIRC my 2002 Ford Taurus OEM CD player would play CD-Rs of mp3 files,
but not CD-RWs.
"~misfit~" <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com>: Jul 24 03:06PM +1200

Once upon a time on usenet bitrex wrote:
> (_not_ mp3 files) and finalized IIRC were essentially the material
> equivalent of a commercial Red Book audio CD and should work on any
> CD player, even ones from the 1980s.
 
Actually CDRs are much less reflective than 'pressed' CDs and as such some
older CD players don't have the laser power needed to get a good (reflected)
signal. This was common knowledge back when CDRs first became affordable and
people would have trouble with their older players not playing them (or not
playing them reliably). Back then some players started being sold as being
CDR compatible but after a while it became taken for granted and the badging
vanished.
 
CDRW discs are even less reflective than CDRs.
--
Shaun.
 
"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com>: Jul 23 09:34PM -0700

~misfit~ wrote:
 
----------------------
 
 
> Actually CDRs are much less reflective than 'pressed' CDs and as such some
> older CD players don't have the laser power needed to get a good (reflected)
> signal.
 
** CDRs use the same metallised ( Gold or Silver) reflecting layer as a normal CD.
 
They play perfectly in my 1982, Sony CDP101.
 
 
 
.... Phil
"~misfit~" <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com>: Jul 24 09:40PM +1200

Once upon a time on usenet Phil Allison wrote:
>> a good (reflected) signal.
 
> ** CDRs use the same metallised ( Gold or Silver) reflecting layer as
> a normal CD.
 
Yes. The difference is in the construction of the non-refecting areas. In a
CD they're pressed into the refecting later and become 'pits' whereas with a
CDR a dye layer between the reflecting area and the pickup laser is 'burned'
changing it's reflectivity index. The result, done on a modern high-quality
burner on a modern high quality blank and at a reasonable speed is close to
a pressed CD w/r/t readability. However a lot of CDRs are burned too fast
and / or are not top quality blanks resulting in a less-well defined change
from reflective to non-reflective which can give some older readers
problems. Especially when they were first on the market.
 
It's not so much of an issue these days as the quality of blanks has
improved considerably and the price of good quality ones has come down.
There used to be a large difference in price between the cheapest discs and
the best discs and and a corresponding difference in readability. This could
give some older players - especially those with lasers that were starting to
weaken - issues reading CDRs.
 
> They play perfectly in my 1982, Sony CDP101.
 
My 1986 Philips CD 160 and my 1987 Sony CDP-17F will both read all of my
newer CDRs but used to struggle with ones I burned in the early days when
discs and burners weren't as good. I still have some of those CDrs and even
though they've been looked after and are in good physical condition both of
the older players struggle with them.
 
I don't have an older player any longer and will probably be getting rid of
those two soon as them not having remotes and me having mobility issues
makes it so I hardly use them these days anyway.
--
Shaun.
 
"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
"~misfit~" <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com>: Jul 24 10:30PM +1200

Once upon a time on usenet ~misfit~ wrote:
>> a normal CD.
 
> Yes. The difference is in the construction of the non-refecting
> areas. In a CD they're pressed into the refecting later
 
layer not later.
 
> and become
> 'pits' whereas with a CDR a dye layer between the reflecting area and
> the pickup laser is 'burned' changing it's reflectivity index.
 
I forgot to mention that this dye layer that is burned into a non-reflective
bit when a CDR is burned is not as optically clear in its unburned state as
the clear coat on a pressed CD which results in a lower index of reflection.
That when combined with the following results in CDRs being harder to read
than pressed CDs.
 
--
Shaun.
 
"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com>: Jul 24 04:30AM -0700

~misfit~ wrote:
 
-------------------
 
> > ** CDRs use the same metallised ( Gold or Silver) reflecting layer as
> > a normal CD.
 
> Yes. The difference is in the construction of the non-refecting areas.
 
** Shame how that admission completely removes your original claim.
 
 
> In a
> CD they're pressed into the refecting later and become 'pits'
 
** Pits come first, reflective metallisation comes afterwards.
 
The whole game is wavelength dependant.
 
 
> whereas with a
> CDR a dye layer between the reflecting area and the pickup laser is 'burned'
> changing it's reflectivity index.
 
** The dye simply becomes opaque.
 
You are just making " facts " up as you go.

A process called "confabulation".
 
A euphemism for bullshitting.
 
 
 
 
..... Phil
"~misfit~" <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com>: Jul 25 12:45AM +1200

Once upon a time on usenet Phil Allison wrote:
 
>> Yes. The difference is in the construction of the non-refecting
>> areas.
 
> ** Shame how that admission completely removes your original claim.
 
I didn't think that you were going to split hairs.
 
>> CD they're pressed into the refecting later and become 'pits'
 
> ** Pits come first, reflective metallisation comes afterwards.
 
> The whole game is wavelength dependant.
 
Perhaps with blu-ray it is but not so much with CDs as the dark and light
areas are large enough for any wavelength to read you moron.
 
>> CDR a dye layer between the reflecting area and the pickup laser is
>> 'burned' changing it's reflectivity index.
 
> ** The dye simply becomes opaque.
 
Which is a fuckwit way of saying it's reflectivity index or ability to
transmit light has changed.
 
> You are just making " facts " up as you go.
 
> A process called "confabulation".
 
> A euphemism for bullshitting.
 
I see you're back to your MO of trying to be so obnoxious as to scare others
off so you can have the last say. Funny how it always happens in the evening
when you're pisssed. You fucking cock-swallowing galah.
--
Shaun.
 
"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
"~misfit~" <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com>: Jul 24 10:18PM +1200

Once upon a time on usenet David Farber wrote:
> decommission the kitty door to the outside world. Now they can only
> go out when we let them and then will only be let back in if they are
> not bringing anything with them.
 
I think you might be better off junking the electric mouse and instead
getting electric cats. It's cruel to expect real ones to do just what you
want and nothing more.
--
Shaun.
 
"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
 
amdx <nojunk@knology.net>: Jul 23 06:24PM -0500

On 7/22/2017 8:24 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
 
> ** Wow - no part numbers or component values.
 
> How uninformative.
 
> .... Phil
 
I think Spehro came up with the answer.
 
"Appears to be an obsolete Mitsubishi MOSFET RD01MUS1
 
"APPLICATION
For output stage of high power amplifiers in VHF/UHF
Band mobile radio sets"
 
Unfortunately the datasheet fails to indicate how they mark the d***
thing:
https://www.modelithics.com/models/Vendor/Mitsubishi/RD01MUS1.pdf
 
 
However this excellent product manual for the iCOM IC703 shows the
code and package for the RD01MUS1 match (page 2).
http://www.radiomanual.info/schemi/IC703_sch.pdf
 
Product page (no datasheet link because it's obsolete..):
http://www.mitsubishielectric.com/semiconductors/php/eTypeNoProfile.php?TYPENO=RD01MUS1&FOLDER=/product/highfrequency/siliconrf/discrete
 
They seem to be 'available' but from sketchy sources so who knows what
you would actually get.
sp. "
I ordered 5 pieces from an Ebay source.
Thanks, Mikek
"Ian Field" <gangprobing.alien1@virginmedia.com>: Jul 23 10:22PM +0100

<tabbypurr@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c51734e2-b8cb-411c-8aba-9658218c0fa2@googlegroups.com...
 
>> > Dan
 
>> a cleaning tape (cassette)
 
> is as much use as tits on a bull.
 
Abrasive to the head and doesn't shift anything off the roller.
 
Far better to open it and clean with a suitable solvent on a cotton bud.
 
The usual danger with muck build up, is the tape sticks to the capstan and
winds around it. destroys the tape and doesn't do the deck much good either.
"Ian Field" <gangprobing.alien1@virginmedia.com>: Jul 23 10:25PM +0100

<tabbypurr@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e0a53591-65bd-48e9-8385-9b0f1d99fcf6@googlegroups.com...
 
> Alcohol & cotton bud. head & whatsit first, rubber roller last. Drying
> properly is necessary. You can neglect it but sound quality will really
> suffer.
 
And by the time you can get at it with a cotton bud - you can also see
whether you did any good or not.
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

Digest for sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com - 11 updates in 3 topics

Look165 <look165@numericable.fr>: Jul 23 09:32AM +0200

a cleaning tape (cassette)
 
 
Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com>: Jul 23 03:14AM -0700

micky wrote:
 
-----------------------
 
 
 
> OR it can become too dirty to clean!!!! Is that true?
 
> The car is from 2004 and i'm guessing it's never had its cassette drive
> cleaned, but it plays fine. May i wait another 13 years?
 
** Got the tiniest idea what happens if you never clean the pinch roller??
 
Obviously not.
 
..... Phil
tabbypurr@gmail.com: Jul 23 08:16AM -0700

On Sunday, 23 July 2017 08:32:55 UTC+1, Look165 wrote:
 
> > Cleaning the heads is more dependent upon the quality of the tapes than anything else. At this point, I would use a "WET" cleaner if available. You take the chance of disturbing what little dirt that is there as well. Be careful. If you have any doubt, remove the unit from the vehicle and have a pro clean it. There is a good chance that the belts are nearing their end of life too. These can be changed and the pinch roller can be treated to get it back to normal too.
 
> > Dan
 
> a cleaning tape (cassette)
 
is as much use as tits on a bull.
rbowman <bowman@montana.com>: Jul 22 10:12PM -0600

On 07/22/2017 11:52 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
 
> I forget the details, but 60 was better than 70 by a couple of mpg.
> Problem is, I prefer driving 75. If I could get away with it I'd go 85+
> but don't want to pay the fines.
 
At under 70 my car usually is in the 35 mpg + range; at 80, it is more
like 32. I get even better mileage in Oregon with its 55 mph speed
limit. I also get bored out of my mind. There isn't a whole lot of
anything between Ontario and Bend but I figure as soon as I get up to a
decent speed a OSP cruiser will materialize from the sagebrush.
 
That stupid speed limit is the least of Oregon's problems.
rbowman <bowman@montana.com>: Jul 22 10:17PM -0600

>> Which is the entire point after all.
> Roger, me lad - you wouldn't happen to be a britiah trained engineer,
> now, would you?? In what discipline of engineering?
 
Engineering Management, I'm thinking.
rbowman <bowman@montana.com>: Jul 22 10:33PM -0600

On 07/22/2017 08:40 PM, Mad Roger wrote:
> For a typical 20-gallon fill, how many gallons off can reality be, plus or
> minus from the indicated reading on the pumpmeter?
 
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5304258
 
The article talks about Washington but most states have a similar
protocol. Pump 5 gallons of gas. 1 gallon is 231 cubic inches, so that
is 1155 cubic inches. The volume must be within 6 cubic inches or
roughly 0.5%. I'll let you do the math for 20 gallons.
 
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/customers-rarely-shorted-at-the-gas-pump/article_3849a455-6151-515e-ae6a-2d65351736b4.html
 
Montana uses the same test. Note that he estimates 2 to 3% of the pumps
fail and have to be repaired and also says with normal wear the pumps
tend to dispense more than stated but some may dispense less. That's
where averaging over a number of tanks comes in unless you fill up at
the same pump at the same station every time. I certainly don't.
clare@snyder.on.ca: Jul 23 12:39AM -0400

On Sun, 23 Jul 2017 02:40:10 -0000 (UTC), Mad Roger
 
>I love that you are the only one quoting actual numbers and not pulling
>them out of your butt to answer the question!
 
>But your numbers confuse me because they seem to be in cubic inches.
You are the engineer, son of physics majors - figure it out!!!
>You also mentioned that metric pumps are more accurate, but that's
>impossible, simply because the pump is as accurate as the pump can get,
>which, we can assume, is a mechanical thing (and not a metric thing).
You fail to grasp the simple fact that a tenth of a liter is a whole
lot less than a tenth of a gallon???? Accuracy of READING the pump is
therefore about 4 times more accurate with a metric pump, because your
read error of +.1/-0 units is based on the much smaller unit.
>the error is four times less for a given liter versus a given gallon but
>that's not saying it's more accurate. It's just saying the volume is less
>so the resulting error is less.
 
and your engineer's understanding of accuracy does not equate to a
smaller error?????????
 
>Anyways, can you just summarize what the error is for a typical USA pump in
>gallons?
As good as Less than 1/10 of a percent according to the information
quoted, with a very few as bad as 1.82%. An american gallon is 128
fluid ounces, so 1.82% of 128 ounces is 2.23 ounces maximum error,
+/1, with most being within .5%, or 0.64 ounces per gallon
 
>For a typical 20-gallon fill, how many gallons off can reality be, plus or
>minus from the indicated reading on the pumpmeter?
The poorest pump checked in that data would be +/- 44.6 oz per 20
gallon tank - the average about +/- 12 ounces.
ASS U MEing the error is randomly distributed,around zero, your
chances of the error being anywhere CLOSE to even the 12 ounces is so
small as to be virtually insignificant unless you always used the same
pump - in which case it is totally immaterial if used for comparative
purposes.
 
For an engineer, you sure have a poor grasp of the concepts.
Bill Vanek <bilvanek2@invalid.com>: Jul 22 09:45PM -0700

On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 22:12:26 -0600, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
wrote:
 
>anything between Ontario and Bend but I figure as soon as I get up to a
>decent speed a OSP cruiser will materialize from the sagebrush.
 
>That stupid speed limit is the least of Oregon's problems.
 
Where is their limit 55?
rbowman <bowman@montana.com>: Jul 23 12:12AM -0600

On 07/22/2017 10:45 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
>> decent speed a OSP cruiser will materialize from the sagebrush.
 
>> That stupid speed limit is the least of Oregon's problems.
 
> Where is their limit 55?
 
The last time I was there US20, US395, and other 2 lane roads in eastern
Oregon. Apparently the raised it to 65 in March of 2016 but are rolling
it back in some places.
 
http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/index.ssf/2016/06/oregon_rolls_back_speed_limit.html
 
but according to this the limit is now 70 on rural roads:
 
http://www.speed-limits.com/oregon.htm
 
70 on Rt. 20 would make a lot more sense if that is indeed what it is
now. I'm not planning to check it out personally though.
Vic Smith <thismailautodeleted@comcast.net>: Jul 23 06:20AM -0500

>>> better.
 
>>Does your tripmeter have a decimal place and digits after that decimal
>>place?
 
<snip>
 
>money, completely decommissioned and scrapped - starting over with
>someone who knew what thet were doing, and how to do it - engineer or
>not.
 
You know, this guy has a hard-on against "non-engineers" measuring their MPG.
Rickman above told him he uses his odometer, then he goes on about tripmeters.
I answered his main complaints in another post. That exchange went like this:
 
">+ Tripmeter accuracy is what in the average car over a 300-mile tank?
>+ Owners ability to "match" the previous level of fuel is what?
>+ Gas station pump reading accuracy is what?
 
I never used the tripmeter for MPG, because I never bothered testing them with mile
markers.
Matching gas level is trivial - and it only has to done at the beginning and end of the
trip.
Gas station pumps - I assume they are accurate, and can't control that anyway.
I'm confident that my measurements are accurate to within .1 MPG."
 
His response to me totally ignored those responses, and he posed the same questions again!
Then, for some reason, he stated talking about speedometers.
He's a troll.
John-Del <ohger1s@gmail.com>: Jul 22 09:13PM -0700

On Saturday, July 22, 2017 at 3:32:11 PM UTC-4, ABLE1 wrote:
 
> properly to the leads.
 
> Is there some trick that needs to be applied somehow to get this
> soldered properly??
 
You now know about the plated-through holes, but be aware that while they show continuity now, they may not after soldering. Some manufacturers do not feature sturdy plating in the holes (Samsung is one), and the added leaked electrolyte can aggravate it.
 
Preheat the board, apply solder flux, use sufficient solder tip heat and carefully insert the capacitors through the holes. Don't force them like you might do on a single sided board.
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

Digest for sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 6 topics

rbowman <bowman@montana.com>: Jul 22 11:38AM -0600

On 07/22/2017 07:22 AM, rickman wrote:
 
> There is a 10 mile stretch with only one traffic light and a posted
> speed limit of 45 MPH. If I can get up to 50 so I'm solid in fifth gear
> my mileage rocks.
 
I should look at the instantaneous readouts versus mph to see if the mpg
falls off gradually or if there is an efficiency sweet spot around
65-70. Except for around the cities the interstate speed limit in this
and some of the adjoining states is 80. Drive 65 at your own risk.
Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.net>: Jul 22 01:52PM -0400

On 7/22/2017 1:38 PM, rbowman wrote:
 
> falls off gradually or if there is an efficiency sweet spot around
> 65-70. Except for around the cities the interstate speed limit in this
> and some of the adjoining states is 80. Drive 65 at your own risk.
 
I tried that one day on a flat stretch so there would be little
variance. This was on my regular trip to work. Speed limit is 65. One
day I did 70, the next 65, then at 60 is was dicey, the next day I tried
55 for about 30 seconds and decided not to risk my life.
 
I forget the details, but 60 was better than 70 by a couple of mpg.
Problem is, I prefer driving 75. If I could get away with it I'd go 85+
but don't want to pay the fines.
Mad Roger <rogermadd@yahoo.com>: Jul 22 11:42PM

On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 00:46:50 -0400,
rickman wrote:
 
> So my odometer is accurate and precise.
 
I understand you because you're exactly the type of person that I had in
mind when I asked the question in the first place.
 
> on the highway as well as against my GPS (I think the highway markers are
> more accurate than the GPS). It is spot on with the current tires to 1% or
> better.
 
Does your tripmeter have a decimal place and digits after that decimal
place?
 
> My speedometer is mechanical and so has a separate calibration factor.
 
The speedometer example was only brought in to point out that the vain hope
that averages result in better "accuracy" is patently false.
 
Mom-and-pop type of people actually believe that a speedometer reads even
close to accurately - and worse - some here propose the vain notion that
the more readings they take, somehow (magically?) the more accurate the
results will be.
 
A speedometer that reads high isn't going to result in more accurate
calculations even if you do a billion test runs.
 
>> + A pumpmeter of 20.25 gallons is likely relatively accurate & precise
 
> Of course it is. States inspect them at some point.
 
You don't seem to understand what accuracy and precision even mean.
Haven't you taken even one science lab course?

>> + Matching fuel level in the tank isn't even close to accurate nor precise
 
> I don't agree. I let the pump click off and then continue to pump for a
> number of more clicks until it cuts off immediately.
 
I'm not at all surprised about your concept of the fuel-level estimation,
and, in fact, you're exactly the mom-and-pop type person I was talking
about when I opened the thread.
 
I understand you.
 
> at least another fifteen miles before I am home so that is better part of a
> gallon burned so I don't need to worry about the gas warming up and running
> out of the tank. I believe this makes for very consistent fill ups.
 
I'm sure you do believe that.
 
> My MPG results pretty well show the consistency of my measures.
 
I'm sure your MPG results support any theory you want them to support.
I believe you.
 
> You know what happens when you assume... ;)
 
You don't know how funny that statement was to me when I just read it now.
 
> I see less than 19 or even 19.5 MPG.
 
I bet you see that decimal place even though it's not in the tripmeter
estimation nor in the filllevel estimation.
 
You see, I understand you because you're the type of person I had in mind
when I asked the question.
 
> I think the consistency of my MPG readings show how well each of these can
> be measured.
 
I'm sure you do.
 
> As you say, the pump is going to be dead on.
 
Whoa! I never said the pump was "dead on" and anyone reading this thread
who thinks I think the pump is "dead on" would have completely
misunderstood everything else I said.
 
All I said was that the inaccuracies and imprecisions in the pump reading
are likely better than the otherwise astoundingly huge imprecision in the
fuel-fill level estimation and in the lesser inaccuracy of the tripmeter
estimation.
 
> Other than scale
> error which can be calibrated out the odometer will be very good.
 
Define "very good" please.
 
> Filling your tank can be good as well.
 
I'm sure you believe that filling the tank is "accurate" since you
calculate 19.5 miles per gallon and not something like 19.5 rounded up to
20 and then the error taken into account such that it's more likely
anywhere between 19 and 21 mpg than it is 19.5 mpg.
 
> It's not like they design gas tanks to have air pockets.
 
Actually, they do have air pockets.
Those air pockets change in size based on temperature & pressure & fill
level.
 
Even the fuel changes in density based on those parameters.

> You don't need to know any of this specifically.
 
Of course I don't. 19.5 mpg is all I need to know.
And if I change "something" which results in 19.7mpg, then of course, that
something was the cause. I understand. I really do.
 
> Why do you care which of the three has what specific degrees of accuracy and
> precision?
 
I care because when I do a calculation, my assumption is that 19.5mpg is
actually something closer to 19 to 21 mpg than it is to 19.5.
 
If the "change" I'm measuring is within that margin of error, then I can't
say anything about what that "change" was.
 
And, more importantly, neither can you.
Which is the entire point after all.
dpb <none@non.net>: Jul 22 07:44PM -0500

On 07/21/2017 8:30 PM, dpb wrote:
>> W&M departments use for their tolerance. A NIST document of 20,000
>> tested meters showed 0-mean normally distributed discrepancies at about
>> 90% bounds on the +/-6 number. The 6/5gal --> ~0.5%
 
...
 
> symmetric and zero-mean, but the tail in each direction dropped off more
> as hyperbolic than a normal--hence the tail percentages would actually
> by somewhat lower than a real normal of same mean, standard deviation.
 
 
I got curious myself on what the numbers revealed and looked at the NIST
numbers again.
 
I computed an empirical cdf and compared it to normal...statistics from
the 20,036 observations are below:
 
>> [h,s]=cdfplot(x);
>> s
s =
min: -50
max: 146
mean: -0.0788
std: 3.7681
median: 0
mode: 0
 
I then compared to normal on the same plot and as outlined above
N(mean,std) is too long-tailed on both ends in comparison. It turns out
that N(mean,std/1.5) is pretty close on both tails to about the +/- 6 point.
 
 
Anyway, from the above it's simple enough to get some pretty good
estimates of what pump volume errors one might expect...the table below
is from the empirical cdf NIST data...
 
P error(in^3)/5Gal error(%)
0.001 -22 -1.82
0.005 -9 -0.78
0.010 -8 -0.69
0.025 -6 -0.52
0.050 -5 -0.43
0.250 -2 -0.17
0.500 0 0
0.750 2 0.17
0.900 4 0.34
0.950 5 0.43
0.975 6 0.52
0.990 7 0.60
0.995 10 0.86
0.999 22 1.82
 
From the above, one can conclude the pump metering error small for all
except the extreme outlier pumps.
 
--
clare@snyder.on.ca: Jul 22 09:10PM -0400

On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 23:42:25 -0000 (UTC), Mad Roger
>say anything about what that "change" was.
 
>And, more importantly, neither can you.
>Which is the entire point after all.
The man is right You are wrong. You ASS U ME too much - and at the
risk of insulting the few GOOD engineers on the list, you OBVIOUISLY
are an "engineer", but not one I'd hire for a job. The job would come
in WAY over budget, WAY late, and would need to be completely redone
by techitians and technologists at great cost, or to save time and
money, completely decommissioned and scrapped - starting over with
someone who knew what thet were doing, and how to do it - engineer or
not.
clare@snyder.on.ca: Jul 22 09:14PM -0400

a whole lot of crap snipped
>say anything about what that "change" was.
 
>And, more importantly, neither can you.
>Which is the entire point after all.
Roger, me lad - you wouldn't happen to be a britiah trained engineer,
now, would you?? In what discipline of engineering?
Mad Roger <rogermadd@yahoo.com>: Jul 23 02:40AM

On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 19:44:26 -0500,
dpb wrote:
 
> 0.999 22 1.82
 
> From the above, one can conclude the pump metering error small for all
> except the extreme outlier pumps.
 
I love that you are the only one quoting actual numbers and not pulling
them out of your butt to answer the question!
 
But your numbers confuse me because they seem to be in cubic inches.
You also mentioned that metric pumps are more accurate, but that's
impossible, simply because the pump is as accurate as the pump can get,
which, we can assume, is a mechanical thing (and not a metric thing).
 
All you're saying is that a liter is four times smaller than a gallon so
the error is four times less for a given liter versus a given gallon but
that's not saying it's more accurate. It's just saying the volume is less
so the resulting error is less.
 
Anyways, can you just summarize what the error is for a typical USA pump in
gallons?
 
For a typical 20-gallon fill, how many gallons off can reality be, plus or
minus from the indicated reading on the pumpmeter?
ABLE1 <someone@nowhere.net>: Jul 22 03:32PM -0400

On 7/14/2017 8:45 PM, ABLE1 wrote:
 
> Thanks for any hints or tip on this matter.
 
> Have a good day.
 
> Les
 
Ok, Update and another question.
 
I removed all the leaking caps plus the others of the same type
and size that had not shown signs of leakage just to be thorough.
 
I then cleaned the board with some mild detergent, rinsed off
and placed in my pre-heated oven at 220F and then turned off.
 
Let set in the oven for about 2 hours while it cooled. Pulled
the board out and it looks good.
 
So far so good. It is now time to install the new caps.
 
And then it hit me.
 
This is a double sided board. I am concerned that the component
side of the board that is under the capacitor will not be soldered
properly to the leads.
 
Is there some trick that needs to be applied somehow to get this
soldered properly??
 
Again thanks for any thoughts or suggestions.
 
Les
Ralph Mowery <rmowery28146@earthlink.net>: Jul 22 04:30PM -0400

In article <XKNcB.239890$OD2.164460@fx44.iad>, someone@nowhere.net
says...
> properly to the leads.
 
> Is there some trick that needs to be applied somehow to get this
> soldered properly??
 
Hopefully the holes are waht they call 'plated through' where there is a
path through the hole to the other side that is conductive. Just use
plenty of solder and heat and it should wick to the other side.
ABLE1 <someone@nowhere.net>: Jul 22 06:42PM -0400

On 7/22/2017 4:30 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
 
> Hopefully the holes are what they call 'plated through' where there is a
> path through the hole to the other side that is conductive. Just use
> plenty of solder and heat and it should wick to the other side.
 
Thanks Ralph,
 
That was the key point I was missing. I metered each side of the board
on one hole, and yes, I got continuity.
 
Excellent!! Sooooooooo "Piece of cake".
 
Thanks again.
 
Les
tabbypurr@gmail.com: Jul 22 05:54PM -0700

On Saturday, 22 July 2017 23:42:16 UTC+1, ABLE1 wrote:
 
> Excellent!! Sooooooooo "Piece of cake".
 
> Thanks again.
 
> Les
 
If it's a piece of cake you'll need to handle it quite carefully when soldering :)
If electronics ever becomes edible that would solve the disposal issue.
 
 
NT
ABLE1 <someone@nowhere.net>: Jul 22 09:05PM -0400


> If it's a piece of cake you'll need to handle it quite carefully when soldering :)
> If electronics ever becomes edible that would solve the disposal issue.
 
> NT
 
Funny........................
Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com>: Jul 22 06:33PM -0700

ABLE1 wrote:
 
------------------
 
 
> Ok, Update and another question.
 
> I removed all the leaking caps plus the others of the same type
> and size that had not shown signs of leakage just to be thorough.
 
** FFS stop using the term "leakage" wrongly.
 
In electronics, "leakage" refers to current passing through an imperfect insulator.
 
What you have is caps *leaking electrolyte*.
 
 
 
 
 
> This is a double sided board. I am concerned that the component
> side of the board that is under the capacitor will not be soldered
> properly to the leads.
 
** That makes no sense.
 
You can see the component side and solder to it.
 
The reverse side may be a problem to get at, but nearly all PCBs have plated through holes that you can solder from EITHER side.
 
 
..... Phil
ABLE1 <someone@nowhere.net>: Jul 22 10:32PM -0400

On 7/22/2017 9:33 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
 
> You can see the component side and solder to it.
 
> The reverse side may be a problem to get at, but nearly all PCBs have plated through holes that you can solder from EITHER side.
 
> ..... Phil
 
Thanks Phil,
 
Mental note made.
 
Les
Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com>: Jul 22 06:24PM -0700

amdx wrote:
 
--------------------
 
 
> I can't find a schematic for my model.
> The closest I have found is this.
> > http://www.czhfmtransmitter.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Fmuser-CZH-CZE-05BcirciutDiagram.pdf
 
 
** Wow - no part numbers or component values.

How uninformative.
 
 
.... Phil
micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com>: Jul 22 04:31PM -0400

Is my 2004 original equipment CD player likely to be able to play Mp3
cds (in the car I just bought)?
 
There is one I want to buy (though I dont' have the url now) that had
far more songs on it, maybe 50 or 100, than the 15 that I'm used to, and
another poster made me realize that this might be a set of MP3 files.
 
The owners manual says nothing about mp3. That probably means no,
right?
dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave Platt): Jul 22 01:45PM -0700

>The owners manual says nothing about mp3. That probably means no,
>right?
 
It almost certainly means "no" although you might get lucky.
 
Ordinary Red Book audio CDs can hold up to 99 tracks. It's _possible_
that the CD you are interested in might be an audio CD with lots of
tracks, and be playable in your car. Total up the track lengths (if
that information is available). If it's less than 80 minutes you may
be in luck; if it's more than that, then it's very probably an MP3
(or similar lossy-encoded) disc and your car player probably won't
recognize it.
 
If it's MP3, you could buy it, use a PC to decompress the individual
.MP3 files into audio format, and burn them onto a set of Red Book
audio CD-R discs. Those would be playable in your car.
"Gareth Magennis" <soundserviceleeds@outlook.com>: Jul 22 10:14PM +0100

"micky" wrote in message news:s6d7ncdecv29j9dsl1d12it82u8e8gb6ce@4ax.com...
 
Is my 2004 original equipment CD player likely to be able to play Mp3
cds (in the car I just bought)?
 
There is one I want to buy (though I dont' have the url now) that had
far more songs on it, maybe 50 or 100, than the 15 that I'm used to, and
another poster made me realize that this might be a set of MP3 files.
 
The owners manual says nothing about mp3. That probably means no,
right?
 
 
**********************************************************
 
 
My 1999 Ford Focus Original CD/radio would play a CD full of mp3's no
problem.
 
 
 
Gareth.
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca>: Jul 22 05:33PM -0400

micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com>: Jul 22 05:46PM -0400

In sci.electronics.repair, on Sat, 22 Jul 2017 22:14:50 +0100, "Gareth
 
>**********************************************************
 
>My 1999 Ford Focus Original CD/radio would play a CD full of mp3's no
>problem.
 
OOOO. That sounds good I'm going to have to make one up and test
the player with it, and if it works, I can buy that thing above.
micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com>: Jul 22 05:48PM -0400

In sci.electronics.repair, on Sat, 22 Jul 2017 13:45:24 -0700,
>tracks, and be playable in your car. Total up the track lengths (if
>that information is available). If it's less than 80 minutes you may
>be in luck;
 
That would be bad for other reasons. If they try to squeeze even 50
songs into 80 minutes, they won't be the versions I want.
 
if it's more than that, then it's very probably an MP3
 
>If it's MP3, you could buy it, use a PC to decompress the individual
>.MP3 files into audio format, and burn them onto a set of Red Book
>audio CD-R discs. Those would be playable in your car.
 
that sounds like a lot of work! But let me go track down the CD and
see if it gives clues related to your post or Gareth's
 
Thanks all.
micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com>: Jul 22 03:53PM -0400

The owners manual for my new car says that I must clean the cassette
player head and roller after every 30 hours of use,
 
OR it can become too dirty to clean!!!! Is that true?
 
The car is from 2004 and i'm guessing it's never had its cassette drive
cleaned, but it plays fine. May i wait another 13 years?
dansabrservices@yahoo.com: Jul 22 01:19PM -0700

Cleaning the heads is more dependent upon the quality of the tapes than anything else. At this point, I would use a "WET" cleaner if available. You take the chance of disturbing what little dirt that is there as well. Be careful. If you have any doubt, remove the unit from the vehicle and have a pro clean it. There is a good chance that the belts are nearing their end of life too. These can be changed and the pinch roller can be treated to get it back to normal too.
 
Dan
tabbypurr@gmail.com: Jul 22 01:35PM -0700

On Saturday, 22 July 2017 20:53:25 UTC+1, micky wrote:
 
> OR it can become too dirty to clean!!!! Is that true?
 
> The car is from 2004 and i'm guessing it's never had its cassette drive
> cleaned, but it plays fine. May i wait another 13 years?
 
Alcohol & cotton bud. head & whatsit first, rubber roller last. Drying properly is necessary. You can neglect it but sound quality will really suffer.
 
 
NT
"Ian Field" <gangprobing.alien1@virginmedia.com>: Jul 22 07:48PM +0100

<jurb6006@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7c8415df-7758-4f20-b069-41496e88de4f@googlegroups.com...
 
> I did make some money fixing them but you can't charge that much on those
> elcheapo sets.
 
> Actually though, it was very rare that I had to replace any parts in them.
 
Never seen an RCA TV in the UK, and I think the GE ones were co produced
with Hitachi.
 
Thorn Consumer Electronics standardised on RCA PIL tubes for a while. There
was a lot of re badging about - so hard to keep track.
 
One of the setups with RCA tubes used a low voltage flyback system - it was
hard to get transistors that could handle the current.
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.